What do you think?
Rate this book
The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive
Progressives need a fundamentally new approach to politics. They have been losing not just because conservatives have so much more money and power, but also because they have accepted the conservatives’ framing of political debates. They have accepted a framing where conservatives want market outcomes whereas liberals want the government to intervene to bring about outcomes that they consider fair.
This is not true. Conservatives rely on the government all the time, most importantly in structuring the market in ways that ensure that income flows upwards. The framing that conservatives like the market while liberals like the government puts liberals in the position of seeming to want to tax the winners to help the losers.
This "loser liberalism" is bad policy and horrible politics. Progressives would be better off fighting battles over the structure of markets so that they don't redistribute income upward. This book describes some of the key areas where progressives can focus their efforts in restructuring market so that more income flows to the bulk of the working population rather than just a small elite.
This is not true. Conservatives rely on the government all the time, most importantly in structuring the market in ways that ensure that income flows upwards. The framing that conservatives like the market while liberals like the government puts liberals in the position of seeming to want to tax the winners to help the losers.
This "loser liberalism" is bad policy and horrible politics. Progressives would be better off fighting battles over the structure of markets so that they don't redistribute income upward. This book describes some of the key areas where progressives can focus their efforts in restructuring market so that more income flows to the bulk of the working population rather than just a small elite.
154 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 2011
40 people are currently reading
357 people want to read
About the author
Dean Baker
61 books140 followershttps://deanbakerpoetryandsongs.com
"Dean is a combination of thought and torment that has made him write more than a baker's dozen of fine poems.. he might produce a collection that could astound us all." - Irving Layton
Irving Layton is one of Canada's foremost poets, nominated twice for the Nobel Prize for Literature; teacher, friend and mentor to Leonard Cohen, and the man to whom Leonard dedicated his latest book.
My poetry has appeared in hundreds of literature magazines world wide, recorded, and online.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
June 15, 2013
It's a shame Baker framed this book around his frustration with the progressive movement as the main argument it mounts is one that could actually have crossover appeal to conservatives, too.
Baker's insight here is real and profound: The tax-and-spending fights that dominate contemporary politics do not comprise the sum total of the government's leverage over the economy. Vast swaths of policy architecture, from the decisions of the Federal Reserve to the management of the dollar to the length of time a patent lasts, often matter more. But they're typically left out of politics. They're left alone because they're "the market." But Baker is right to argue that this is simply a rhetorical victory for those who benefit from the status quo. A drug company defending the current patent system may or may not be in the right. But they are certainly not defending the free market. They're defending government intervention on their behalf.
The clarity of Baker's prose is bracing. His explanations of how the Fed uses interest rates and how the Treasury manages the dollar are among the clearest you'll find. But the book, short as it is, is unfocused. It doesn't hold to the argument that more attention needs to be paid to before-tax policy, or even to the idea that the real fight is to recognize free market solutions where powerful interests have blocked them. Instead it meanders through the financial crisis, and makes an argument for stimulus, and dips into various policy topics Baker wants to talk about. There's nothing really wrong with that, as Baker's thinking is interesting throughout. But there's a great argument in this book that deserves to be follow more rigorously, and framed more broadly.
Baker's insight here is real and profound: The tax-and-spending fights that dominate contemporary politics do not comprise the sum total of the government's leverage over the economy. Vast swaths of policy architecture, from the decisions of the Federal Reserve to the management of the dollar to the length of time a patent lasts, often matter more. But they're typically left out of politics. They're left alone because they're "the market." But Baker is right to argue that this is simply a rhetorical victory for those who benefit from the status quo. A drug company defending the current patent system may or may not be in the right. But they are certainly not defending the free market. They're defending government intervention on their behalf.
The clarity of Baker's prose is bracing. His explanations of how the Fed uses interest rates and how the Treasury manages the dollar are among the clearest you'll find. But the book, short as it is, is unfocused. It doesn't hold to the argument that more attention needs to be paid to before-tax policy, or even to the idea that the real fight is to recognize free market solutions where powerful interests have blocked them. Instead it meanders through the financial crisis, and makes an argument for stimulus, and dips into various policy topics Baker wants to talk about. There's nothing really wrong with that, as Baker's thinking is interesting throughout. But there's a great argument in this book that deserves to be follow more rigorously, and framed more broadly.
February 24, 2013
I went into this book with some skepticism, thinking that it would be an anti-market screed. I was pleasantly surprised that from the first chapter Baker actually mounts a defense of the free market against those he thinks are wrongly associated with it (i.e., modern conservatives and many liberals). He even makes the argument (correctly, I think) that the last 30-40 years have not been the great era of laissez-faire.
What is interesting about this book is that Baker is covering some of the same ground that libertarians have covered for a long time. For instance, his arguments against occupational licensure and intellectual property laws echo those of Murray Rothbard. There is even a hint of the Austrian business cycle theory when Baker talks about the tech bubble of he 1990's and the housing bubble of the 2000's.
Speaking of the tech bubble, Baker takes on the cult of Clinton by claiming that it was the unsustainable bubble and the subsequent tax revenues, not any Clinton policy, that produced the fiscal surplus at the end of 1990s. No one, says Baker, saw the surplus coming as late as 1996.
All that being said, I can't give this book much of an endorsement in part because his views on trade and monetary policy are so troubling. There seems to be a fetish of manufacturing with many on the left (and right) that make them resort to age-old mercantilist ideas. While I understand the arguments for encouraging exports and advocating higher inflation, I don't see how those policies make us better off.
I also find it somewhat troubling that Baker seems to have a vendetta against high paid professional trades. I understand and even support his argument that many of these professions (e.g., doctors, engineers) are protected by various unfair government policies; I just can't accept his view that making these people poorer is good in part because they may end up becoming more politically progressive and voting in such a manner.
All in all, it was an interesting but flawed read.
What is interesting about this book is that Baker is covering some of the same ground that libertarians have covered for a long time. For instance, his arguments against occupational licensure and intellectual property laws echo those of Murray Rothbard. There is even a hint of the Austrian business cycle theory when Baker talks about the tech bubble of he 1990's and the housing bubble of the 2000's.
Speaking of the tech bubble, Baker takes on the cult of Clinton by claiming that it was the unsustainable bubble and the subsequent tax revenues, not any Clinton policy, that produced the fiscal surplus at the end of 1990s. No one, says Baker, saw the surplus coming as late as 1996.
All that being said, I can't give this book much of an endorsement in part because his views on trade and monetary policy are so troubling. There seems to be a fetish of manufacturing with many on the left (and right) that make them resort to age-old mercantilist ideas. While I understand the arguments for encouraging exports and advocating higher inflation, I don't see how those policies make us better off.
I also find it somewhat troubling that Baker seems to have a vendetta against high paid professional trades. I understand and even support his argument that many of these professions (e.g., doctors, engineers) are protected by various unfair government policies; I just can't accept his view that making these people poorer is good in part because they may end up becoming more politically progressive and voting in such a manner.
All in all, it was an interesting but flawed read.
March 29, 2012
I read a lot of liberal/progressive books, and this was one of the best I've come across in a while. As you can tell by the title, this is economist Baker's attempt to enter the crowded market of attempts to reframe the debate between "free market/growth" conservativism and "let's just hand poor people money" liberalism. It goes without saying that that's a dumb dichotomy and only hopeless Fox News junkies (who aren't exactly this book's target market) think that way, but where this book betters its peers is not only in its clear explanation of just how un-Adam Smithian the modern GOP has become, but also in straightforward policy prescriptions in how to allow more people to take advantage of economic growth and re-level the playing field.
April 16, 2017
One way to get me to read your book is offer it for free, and the other is to have a nice blog. I found Dean Baker's The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive to be a pleasant read. Baker works for the liberal CEPR and is a shill for the unions. His blog, Beat the Press, applies basic economics principles to debunk various articles in major outlets, which is why he's linked on this blog.
If you can get past comparing every cost-saving measure he proposes to how much the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" cost, and get past his overlooking of various economic problems with unions, you'll like this book. Baker's goal is to move the goalposts and argue that Progressives are not and should not be anti-markets. He highlights ways Conservatives have disguised various policies as "free market," when in reality they are not. In that, he does everyone a valuable service. Baker's ideas are quite Hayekian. He generally sees the market as favoring Progressive outcomes:
"Progressives should want a free market" (141). "In the same vein, we can structure the market more generally to produce progressive outcomes. The enormous growth of inequality over the last three decades did not come about as the result of the natural workings of the market; it came about through conscious design. The job of progressives is to point this out in every venue and in every way we can. It is not by luck, talent, and hard work that the rich are getting so much richer. It is by rigging the rules of the game" (154).
Trade deals, for example, are never "free trade" as they are labeled and trumpeted in the media. They always contain a large number of restrictions, usually involving patents and "intellectual property rights," and containing provisions that open the market for our financial services. Most of these clauses favor people who work in higher-skill industries, while the trade deals generally lower barriers for goods produced in low-skill industries. Other high-skilled workers (doctors, accountants, etc.) are in services that are not easily tradable, so trade deals don't increase the competition they face. This could be offset if we allowed freer flows of labor along with goods and services. Most high-skilled immigrants (doctors, engineers, etc.) to the U.S. are unwilling to take low-skill jobs in farming and construction. But due to visa laws and making it onerous for employers to sponsor visas, the supply of these workers in the U.S. is relatively small. Hence, wages for these sectors are high. In the 1990s, physicians groups argued against increasing visas for foreign physicians because these physicians were willing to work for less, and hence would lower physicians' wages via competition. Meanwhile, low-skilled workers in manufacturing are increasingly faced with tougher competition and making the same complaints-- but the situation currently favors the doctors over the factory workers.
In this there is no daylight between Baker and a Libertarian. We'd all be better off if all barriers were removed. But as far as immigration goes, a Milton Friedman quote comes to mind: "You can't have open borders and a welfare state." So, Baker argues that we should take advantage of the fact that every other country in the world pays less for healthcare than we do, and find a way to increase trade in services. If we signed trade agreements in health care, where Medicare would pay for services in places like Singapore as well as the U.S., we'd see incredible savings. Someone could have a heart bypass for $40,000 in Singapore as opposed to $100,000 in the U.S., and the taxpayer or the insurance customer could save. The market would develop ratings for international hospitals and insurance companies could build PPO networks just as they do in the 50 states. Government agreements could work out how lawsuits are handled.
The basic Ricardian analysis of comparative advantage typically leads teachers and students to conclude that the U.S. will continue to shed manufacturing jobs and gain more higher-skilled service jobs. But Baker points out that this broad process cannot be indefinite:
"There is no logic whatsoever in the view that somehow the United States will remain dominant in highly skilled occupations, exporting the services produced in these areas to the rest of the world while importing manufactured goods from the rest of the world. It is perhaps a racist conception to believe that workers in the developing world somehow lack the capacity to compete effectively in skilled professions with people in the United States...To imagine that the United States can maintain an advantage over these countries in international trade involving these occupations would require a view that these engineers and designers can be effective when working in Silicon Valley or Seattle but suddenly become 80 or 90 percent less efficient if they return to their home countries or the countries of their forebears. The United States is destined to import major quantities of highly paid professional services in the decades ahead, just as it now imports major quantities of manufactured goods. The argument for the benefit from these imports is the same as the argument for the benefit of importing manufactured goods: it allows us to buy these items at lower prices than if we relied on domestic production. This frees up income to purchase other goods and services, making us richer and increasing growth" (97).
Any sector of the economy where you see increasing gains over time raises a flag that the market must be kept from functioning properly. Whether it be a tech stock bubble, or a housing bubble, or CEO pay. The fact that U.S. CEOs has increased relative to the median worker, and they are paid roughly twice as much as European counterparts without a noticeable difference in value added, is evidence somehow they are being shielded from competition:
"This pay gap suggests the possibility of large gains to the U.S. economy and to groups of workers who are not in top corporate management from taking advantage of lower-paid top management at foreign companies wherever possible...(T)he public has no patriotic obligation to favor contracts with U.S.-based companies simply because the companies have a headquarters in the United States. Where foreign-based companies like Fiat can offer lower costs, at least in part because their executives are lining their pockets much less amply at the company's expense, progressives should jump at the opportunity to bring them on board."
Baker is not promoting nationalism, but rather economic efficiency, as Progressive which is refreshing.
Baker's hypothesis for why these ideas aren't widely embraced by the public is that the media and political class consists mostly of high-skilled, highly-educated workers who want to see their salaries, and the salaries of their equally high-skilled friends and neighbors, shielded from competition. Meanwhile, they aren't as connected to lower-skilled workers and don't care as much. It's also true that many large Progressive donors work in finance (George Soros) or Hollywood, both of which are highly protected sectors, so some Progressive politicians don't want to hurt their financial position. Baker also just believes the general population lacks economic literacy, as seen with his macroeconomic chapters.
Baker takes the time to give an overview of how the Fed works and to explain the national income approach to the balance of payments because he believes most Progressives are ignorant about how these things work (I can't disagree!). Treasury Secretaries' and political candidates' "strong dollar" rhetoric polls well because people have nationalistic sentiments about their currency, but the fact that the U.S. has run a trade deficit for the last 30+ years indicates that the dollar has been consistently overvalued. We'd likely be doing more manufacturing if the dollar was worth less. He takes time to criticize the China-bashing of recent years by pointing out that:
"At the end of the day, the U.S. Treasury has enormous ability to influence the value of the dollar. It is certainly capable of forcing the dollar down against the Chinese RMB and other important currencies, if this is a major goal of economic policy. So far, a lower-valued dollar has not made the cut. A high valued dollar is in the interest of the financial industry and other powerful actors, and so the Treasury Department has not pursued a lower-valued dollar as major goal in negotiations with China or anyone else."
Conservative politicians who are hawks over the U.S. budget deficit cannot logically simultaneously demand a "strong dollar" policy, something which I've pointed out a few times on my blog. Increasing national saving leads to an increase in net exports via a real depreciation of the currency.
Baker would like to see a Fed that pursues higher inflation and worries more about unemployment. He's not terribly far from market monetarism on some points.
Baker's final point is about patent monopolies. He is a champion of the government buying research patents from pharmaceuticals and providing other incentives-- like prizes-- for the development of drugs rather than seeing consumers hurt by higher drug prices as pharmaceuticals recoup the costs of their research. This is an approach discussed by libertarian thinkers like Tyler Cowen. The reason we don't do that, according to Baker, is that it would mean more government spending on scientific research and conservatives paint this idea as central planning. He also applies this concept to music and the arts, which gets a little hard for me to fathom as reality. But I like the ideas and intention-- the way we have set up our patent monopolies have become very onerous and ridiculous as companies like Apple and Amazon, as well as "patent trolls," hire armies of lawyers to sue each other over patenting the most basic of ideas. This system is slowing innovation and hurting consumers, while benefiting lawyers (regressively).
Baker wisely avoids talking about taxes and income redistribution. He wants Progressives to take up causes that Conservatives can't logically or genuinely argue against on the merits. The caricature of Progressives is that they are anti-market and pro-redistribution. Baker wants to change that.
"Conservatives' complaints about the economic distortions created by high taxes have some basis in reality, even if they are often hugely overstated. Progressives should steer clear of the potential for being seen as having an agenda that means slower growth and less job creation. Shifting attention to before-tax issues of income means talking about the big policy items, most importantly the Fed and the dollar, that have the greatest impact on economic outcomes."
I give this book 4 stars out of 5. Since I read his blog, I liked the full elucidation of Baker's ideas that he usually only alludes to in his posts for brevity's sake. I'd rather have policy designed by a Progressive economist than one created by a Conservative non-economist.
If you can get past comparing every cost-saving measure he proposes to how much the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" cost, and get past his overlooking of various economic problems with unions, you'll like this book. Baker's goal is to move the goalposts and argue that Progressives are not and should not be anti-markets. He highlights ways Conservatives have disguised various policies as "free market," when in reality they are not. In that, he does everyone a valuable service. Baker's ideas are quite Hayekian. He generally sees the market as favoring Progressive outcomes:
"Progressives should want a free market" (141). "In the same vein, we can structure the market more generally to produce progressive outcomes. The enormous growth of inequality over the last three decades did not come about as the result of the natural workings of the market; it came about through conscious design. The job of progressives is to point this out in every venue and in every way we can. It is not by luck, talent, and hard work that the rich are getting so much richer. It is by rigging the rules of the game" (154).
Trade deals, for example, are never "free trade" as they are labeled and trumpeted in the media. They always contain a large number of restrictions, usually involving patents and "intellectual property rights," and containing provisions that open the market for our financial services. Most of these clauses favor people who work in higher-skill industries, while the trade deals generally lower barriers for goods produced in low-skill industries. Other high-skilled workers (doctors, accountants, etc.) are in services that are not easily tradable, so trade deals don't increase the competition they face. This could be offset if we allowed freer flows of labor along with goods and services. Most high-skilled immigrants (doctors, engineers, etc.) to the U.S. are unwilling to take low-skill jobs in farming and construction. But due to visa laws and making it onerous for employers to sponsor visas, the supply of these workers in the U.S. is relatively small. Hence, wages for these sectors are high. In the 1990s, physicians groups argued against increasing visas for foreign physicians because these physicians were willing to work for less, and hence would lower physicians' wages via competition. Meanwhile, low-skilled workers in manufacturing are increasingly faced with tougher competition and making the same complaints-- but the situation currently favors the doctors over the factory workers.
In this there is no daylight between Baker and a Libertarian. We'd all be better off if all barriers were removed. But as far as immigration goes, a Milton Friedman quote comes to mind: "You can't have open borders and a welfare state." So, Baker argues that we should take advantage of the fact that every other country in the world pays less for healthcare than we do, and find a way to increase trade in services. If we signed trade agreements in health care, where Medicare would pay for services in places like Singapore as well as the U.S., we'd see incredible savings. Someone could have a heart bypass for $40,000 in Singapore as opposed to $100,000 in the U.S., and the taxpayer or the insurance customer could save. The market would develop ratings for international hospitals and insurance companies could build PPO networks just as they do in the 50 states. Government agreements could work out how lawsuits are handled.
The basic Ricardian analysis of comparative advantage typically leads teachers and students to conclude that the U.S. will continue to shed manufacturing jobs and gain more higher-skilled service jobs. But Baker points out that this broad process cannot be indefinite:
"There is no logic whatsoever in the view that somehow the United States will remain dominant in highly skilled occupations, exporting the services produced in these areas to the rest of the world while importing manufactured goods from the rest of the world. It is perhaps a racist conception to believe that workers in the developing world somehow lack the capacity to compete effectively in skilled professions with people in the United States...To imagine that the United States can maintain an advantage over these countries in international trade involving these occupations would require a view that these engineers and designers can be effective when working in Silicon Valley or Seattle but suddenly become 80 or 90 percent less efficient if they return to their home countries or the countries of their forebears. The United States is destined to import major quantities of highly paid professional services in the decades ahead, just as it now imports major quantities of manufactured goods. The argument for the benefit from these imports is the same as the argument for the benefit of importing manufactured goods: it allows us to buy these items at lower prices than if we relied on domestic production. This frees up income to purchase other goods and services, making us richer and increasing growth" (97).
Any sector of the economy where you see increasing gains over time raises a flag that the market must be kept from functioning properly. Whether it be a tech stock bubble, or a housing bubble, or CEO pay. The fact that U.S. CEOs has increased relative to the median worker, and they are paid roughly twice as much as European counterparts without a noticeable difference in value added, is evidence somehow they are being shielded from competition:
"This pay gap suggests the possibility of large gains to the U.S. economy and to groups of workers who are not in top corporate management from taking advantage of lower-paid top management at foreign companies wherever possible...(T)he public has no patriotic obligation to favor contracts with U.S.-based companies simply because the companies have a headquarters in the United States. Where foreign-based companies like Fiat can offer lower costs, at least in part because their executives are lining their pockets much less amply at the company's expense, progressives should jump at the opportunity to bring them on board."
Baker is not promoting nationalism, but rather economic efficiency, as Progressive which is refreshing.
Baker's hypothesis for why these ideas aren't widely embraced by the public is that the media and political class consists mostly of high-skilled, highly-educated workers who want to see their salaries, and the salaries of their equally high-skilled friends and neighbors, shielded from competition. Meanwhile, they aren't as connected to lower-skilled workers and don't care as much. It's also true that many large Progressive donors work in finance (George Soros) or Hollywood, both of which are highly protected sectors, so some Progressive politicians don't want to hurt their financial position. Baker also just believes the general population lacks economic literacy, as seen with his macroeconomic chapters.
Baker takes the time to give an overview of how the Fed works and to explain the national income approach to the balance of payments because he believes most Progressives are ignorant about how these things work (I can't disagree!). Treasury Secretaries' and political candidates' "strong dollar" rhetoric polls well because people have nationalistic sentiments about their currency, but the fact that the U.S. has run a trade deficit for the last 30+ years indicates that the dollar has been consistently overvalued. We'd likely be doing more manufacturing if the dollar was worth less. He takes time to criticize the China-bashing of recent years by pointing out that:
"At the end of the day, the U.S. Treasury has enormous ability to influence the value of the dollar. It is certainly capable of forcing the dollar down against the Chinese RMB and other important currencies, if this is a major goal of economic policy. So far, a lower-valued dollar has not made the cut. A high valued dollar is in the interest of the financial industry and other powerful actors, and so the Treasury Department has not pursued a lower-valued dollar as major goal in negotiations with China or anyone else."
Conservative politicians who are hawks over the U.S. budget deficit cannot logically simultaneously demand a "strong dollar" policy, something which I've pointed out a few times on my blog. Increasing national saving leads to an increase in net exports via a real depreciation of the currency.
Baker would like to see a Fed that pursues higher inflation and worries more about unemployment. He's not terribly far from market monetarism on some points.
Baker's final point is about patent monopolies. He is a champion of the government buying research patents from pharmaceuticals and providing other incentives-- like prizes-- for the development of drugs rather than seeing consumers hurt by higher drug prices as pharmaceuticals recoup the costs of their research. This is an approach discussed by libertarian thinkers like Tyler Cowen. The reason we don't do that, according to Baker, is that it would mean more government spending on scientific research and conservatives paint this idea as central planning. He also applies this concept to music and the arts, which gets a little hard for me to fathom as reality. But I like the ideas and intention-- the way we have set up our patent monopolies have become very onerous and ridiculous as companies like Apple and Amazon, as well as "patent trolls," hire armies of lawyers to sue each other over patenting the most basic of ideas. This system is slowing innovation and hurting consumers, while benefiting lawyers (regressively).
Baker wisely avoids talking about taxes and income redistribution. He wants Progressives to take up causes that Conservatives can't logically or genuinely argue against on the merits. The caricature of Progressives is that they are anti-market and pro-redistribution. Baker wants to change that.
"Conservatives' complaints about the economic distortions created by high taxes have some basis in reality, even if they are often hugely overstated. Progressives should steer clear of the potential for being seen as having an agenda that means slower growth and less job creation. Shifting attention to before-tax issues of income means talking about the big policy items, most importantly the Fed and the dollar, that have the greatest impact on economic outcomes."
I give this book 4 stars out of 5. Since I read his blog, I liked the full elucidation of Baker's ideas that he usually only alludes to in his posts for brevity's sake. I'd rather have policy designed by a Progressive economist than one created by a Conservative non-economist.
August 20, 2012
"The enigma of trade is that it can make a whole country richer and yet most of its people poorer."
Really in to pop-sci econ stuff at the moment. Must have something to do with imminent medicine studies. Either way, a short, concise, imminently careful and precise take on policies and aspects of national economy that are of much bigger importance than, say, the bush tax cuts for the top 2%, specifically about the us but some aspects are noteworthy for international consideration.
Talks in depth about the fed and its policies and how overvaluation of the dollars affect markets. Big bonus for me was that it doesn't just go on to the list the inherent problems and lack of debate about the problems, but takes extensive care to detail realistic plans in how to go forward.
Ah, Dean Baker.
Really in to pop-sci econ stuff at the moment. Must have something to do with imminent medicine studies. Either way, a short, concise, imminently careful and precise take on policies and aspects of national economy that are of much bigger importance than, say, the bush tax cuts for the top 2%, specifically about the us but some aspects are noteworthy for international consideration.
Talks in depth about the fed and its policies and how overvaluation of the dollars affect markets. Big bonus for me was that it doesn't just go on to the list the inherent problems and lack of debate about the problems, but takes extensive care to detail realistic plans in how to go forward.
Ah, Dean Baker.
May 13, 2016
"Progressives have to start playing hardball." A solid read for anyone who has been led to believe that taxation and transfer are the major, or even main, points of contestation in progressive versus regressive economic policy. Focusing on pre-tax income, Dean Baker uncovers the role of the Fed, interest rate policy, dollar policy, trade, and patents in the redistribution of income in the U.S. He puts arguments in simple, straightforward fashion, while acknowledging the complexity of the topic at hand. More importantly, he offers concrete logistics and comments thoroughly on the political feasibility of each proposal. An easy and swift read for someone with an economics background; more dense - but doable - for those without.
December 28, 2017
Rarely does one find a book that perfectly sums up their personal political thoughts perfectly. This book is one of them.
In the highly charged post 2016 election world of American politics, I've had to do a lot of research and soul searching to figgure out my place in everything. I moved over the course of of almost 40 books from libertarian leaning to centrist to progressive leaning..... And I was beginning to wonder: why are progressives so lousy at defending economic policy that helps their cause? It's not like we have a shortage of excellent progressive economists or conservative economists who advocate for policy that accomplishes progressive goals.
Looking up progressive economists lead me to Dean Baker, and that lead me to this book which essentially asks the same question: why do progressives allow conservatives (and let's be fair, neoliberal Democrats) control the narrative of the economic debate?
While this book does not focus on the "why" aspect of progressives acceptance of the economic narrative of conservatives (I personally feel it's a combination of economic ignorance and a greater empathise on the morality of public policy by most progressives vs practical outcomes), it gives a excellent basic summary of ways progressives can turn conservatives on their heads when the discussion turns to economic policy.
As with most things, I'm not totally on board with everything he wants. I feel that he ignores the negative effects of runaway inflation, and sidesteps the negative effects out high inflation was having on workers in the pre Volker Fed. I'm also not totally on board with his criticisms of high dollar policy (which I feel runs too close to mercantilism), but on both issues his arguments left a impression on me and digging deeper will be necessary to make up my mind on the issue.
For everything elese, I'm totally on board for Baker's arguments. He brings up several excellent policy suggestions, some of which I already knew about, others that where brand new. I found the idea of work shareing to be especially interesting (and possibility a policy that could stem the destructive nature of deflation in the future). His arguments against the parent system where also new and interesting: I knew patent reform was important to get markets to work again, but I had focused more on cutting back on protections instead of outright replacements. The prize replace idea put forward for research patients for drugs was especially interesting....but his ideas on reforming entertainment patients seemed unnecessary. Compared to the other issues covered in the book, entertainment patients are small potatoes.
Breaking the cult of the Clinton administration was also very refreshing. It's very important for progressives to recognize the truth: although the Clinton administration saw many positive gains, it also passed a LOT of policy who's outcomes directly oppose progressive interests. Recognizing and attempting to reverse these policies should be a goal of progressives everywhere.
Either way, excellent book. It demands a second edition or a sequel...... With more progressives charging into the political scene, some will have to pick up the fight to controll the narrative of economic issues and fight for a market that works for everyone,not just for the privileged few.
I feel progressives ignored the issue back when this book was published. We shouldn't make the same mistake twice.
In the highly charged post 2016 election world of American politics, I've had to do a lot of research and soul searching to figgure out my place in everything. I moved over the course of of almost 40 books from libertarian leaning to centrist to progressive leaning..... And I was beginning to wonder: why are progressives so lousy at defending economic policy that helps their cause? It's not like we have a shortage of excellent progressive economists or conservative economists who advocate for policy that accomplishes progressive goals.
Looking up progressive economists lead me to Dean Baker, and that lead me to this book which essentially asks the same question: why do progressives allow conservatives (and let's be fair, neoliberal Democrats) control the narrative of the economic debate?
While this book does not focus on the "why" aspect of progressives acceptance of the economic narrative of conservatives (I personally feel it's a combination of economic ignorance and a greater empathise on the morality of public policy by most progressives vs practical outcomes), it gives a excellent basic summary of ways progressives can turn conservatives on their heads when the discussion turns to economic policy.
As with most things, I'm not totally on board with everything he wants. I feel that he ignores the negative effects of runaway inflation, and sidesteps the negative effects out high inflation was having on workers in the pre Volker Fed. I'm also not totally on board with his criticisms of high dollar policy (which I feel runs too close to mercantilism), but on both issues his arguments left a impression on me and digging deeper will be necessary to make up my mind on the issue.
For everything elese, I'm totally on board for Baker's arguments. He brings up several excellent policy suggestions, some of which I already knew about, others that where brand new. I found the idea of work shareing to be especially interesting (and possibility a policy that could stem the destructive nature of deflation in the future). His arguments against the parent system where also new and interesting: I knew patent reform was important to get markets to work again, but I had focused more on cutting back on protections instead of outright replacements. The prize replace idea put forward for research patients for drugs was especially interesting....but his ideas on reforming entertainment patients seemed unnecessary. Compared to the other issues covered in the book, entertainment patients are small potatoes.
Breaking the cult of the Clinton administration was also very refreshing. It's very important for progressives to recognize the truth: although the Clinton administration saw many positive gains, it also passed a LOT of policy who's outcomes directly oppose progressive interests. Recognizing and attempting to reverse these policies should be a goal of progressives everywhere.
Either way, excellent book. It demands a second edition or a sequel...... With more progressives charging into the political scene, some will have to pick up the fight to controll the narrative of economic issues and fight for a market that works for everyone,not just for the privileged few.
I feel progressives ignored the issue back when this book was published. We shouldn't make the same mistake twice.
Read
September 10, 2021I've never seen so many false narratives in a single book. Progressivism is a cancer on society, metastasized from leftist communist theory. Legitimate Liberalism ideology has never, not even once, wanted anything besides a restricted, decentralized, & contractually limited government.
February 21, 2017
An interesting, if a bit dated now, book about how liberals should be using economic tools to fight for their causes. His big point is that the classic liberal strategy of "tax the rich to give to the poor" doesn't resonate enough and is unrealistic politics. He advocates that liberals educate themselves about the economic levers of power, which is something I agree on, and is one of the reasons I've been reading books like this. Some of his big strategies that liberals should advocate for are a weaker dollar (to lower trade deficits and make American goods cheaper, shoring up our manufacturing sector) allowing for free trade not just in low-paying areas (like manufacturing) but in professional areas, like doctoring (making those services, like health care cheaper), and reducing intellection property and copyright protections (making things like drugs and textbooks cheaper). I can get behind most of his strategies, especially the reining in of finance, both directly and through the reduction in their power via the mechanisms above, although I'm not sure we need to keep shoring up manufacturing. I would rather have a stronger social safety net for those workers displaced by the movement of manufacturing to other areas.
He lives by his word about copyright - the book is available as a free download online.
He lives by his word about copyright - the book is available as a free download online.
July 27, 2013
Most of these ideas are repeated at in Baker's blogs, but it's good to see them more developed here. The theory behind all of them is that liberal outcomes could be obtained by certain net reductions in federal government activity. These range from exceedingly small ideas that seem like they could use more consideration of secondary effects to full-on never-gonna-happen giant restructurings. Most of them are interesting and the thesis as a whole is certainly challenging.
It seems like more consideration of the counterpoints would make it stronger.
Baker's right that most of the policy is centered entirely around marginal fiscal changes.
It seems like more consideration of the counterpoints would make it stronger.
Baker's right that most of the policy is centered entirely around marginal fiscal changes.
January 20, 2012
Definitely an interesting read. Baker puts forth some intriguing ideas that should be part of larger economic policy discussion. Some ideas are better than others, like opening up foreign trade to professional workers and not just manual labor. However, i'm a bit more skeptical of German style work sharing programs here since we lack the social support system of Germany. Either way, it is a book filled with ideas and really stresses the importance, for progressives, of thinking long term.
October 5, 2011
For a guy whose blog is all about holding journalists and writers to high standards, Baker writes a book that is remarkably sloppy. Full of overextended boilerplate, dumbed down labels, broadstroke shotgun blasts of polemic, and gaps in logic, the book states a thesis about reframing issues to liberals' advantage but constantly strays. Great ideas that deserve better than ranty, half-baked blogposts in book form.
August 2, 2012
A nice reminder to the left that common progressive issues genuinely have market solutions. The left needs to understand that markets are simply sets of rules. If the rules favor progressive outcomes, progressives can be happy. It makes much more sense to pay attention to the value of the dollar, protected organizations, inflation rates and copyrights than silly ideas about "socialism." In short, a basic understanding of economics would do a lot of good for the debate.
October 13, 2016
three stars for its clarity in explaining delicate subjects. Apart from that I don't really buy progressive agenda.
the whole point that baker made is how to suppress big business so that majority will 'benefit' from government's anti business policy. One of his bizarre idea is encouraging politician to influence central bank policy. Does the econ text books tells us that this institution suppose to be independent from any political interference?
the whole point that baker made is how to suppress big business so that majority will 'benefit' from government's anti business policy. One of his bizarre idea is encouraging politician to influence central bank policy. Does the econ text books tells us that this institution suppose to be independent from any political interference?
August 13, 2012
A somewhat overly simplistic explanation of economic policies over the last thirty years and how they have allowed wealth to flow from the poor towards the wealthy in America, as well as some suggestions to change said policies to change the direction of flow of capital in the United States.
July 7, 2012
Excellent book about how free market proponents often don't actually support free markets. Not 5 stars if you follow Dean Baker's blog as a lot of the information will be rehashed
September 9, 2012
Dean Baker makes a great argument that Liberals should really be focusing their legislative/executive efforts on more substantiative issues. Who could disagree with that?
December 28, 2012
It's scattered and a little sloppy, but brave and groundbreaking.
November 4, 2013
Solid Dean Baker. Not much surprising if you've been a long-time fan, as I have.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews